[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2898?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16818724#comment-16818724
]
Ruben Quesada Lopez commented on CALCITE-2898:
----------------------------------------------
As explained in the [mailing
list|https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/calcite-dev/201904.mbox/%3CCAEZ%2BV3s7xFJFsXtHOC%2B7m%3DRGbw-SYUYR2ZTm842Bui3dezVc5Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E],
my proposed change was working on my scenario only because I was implementing
[Semi]Join via Correlation, as soon as I switched to Enumerable[Semi]Join, the
execution did not return the expected results. Therefore, as [~julianhyde]
said, this change will do harm, so I'll close this ticket and the linked PR.
> RelOptUtil#splitJoinCondition must consider RexFieldAccess referencing
> RexInputRef
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-2898
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2898
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.18.0
> Reporter: Ruben Quesada Lopez
> Assignee: Ruben Quesada Lopez
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> {{RelOptUtil#splitJoinCondition}} "Splits out the equi-join components of a
> join condition, and returns what's left (remaining join filters that are not
> equijoins)". This works fine in case of RexInputRef operands in the condition
> (e.g. $0 = $1), but if any of the operands is a RexFieldAccess referencing a
> RexInputRef (e.g. $0 = $1.id), then the condition will NOT be detected as an
> equi-join and will be returned as if it were a non-equijoin.
> This can lead to undesired consequences, e.g {{JoinInfo#of}} would return a
> NonEquiJoinInfo object instead of an EquiJoinInfo object, which can generate
> problems if, for example, we are creating a SemiJoin (which requires an
> EquiJoinInfo object)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
